A must Read from a mastercraft :The Tyranny of Courage, By Wole Soyinka – Premium Times Blogs

Courage is manifested in various forms, in a vast array of situations that may even appear to be studies in contrast, yet the common element is always uniformly recognisable. Courage in governance may be seized in action – going against popular opinion to effect a measure that a leader believes is salutary and necessary – be it in the short or long term – or else withholding a vociferously canvassed measure, but one that is contrary to one’s absolute conviction, even at the risk of slipping several digits down the index of opinion polls. Such positions, I believe, would be universally considered as normal expectations from a courageous leader. Skill in preventing, or managing the resulting public discontent belongs in another department and is outside the scope of what I am moved to remark in the turbulent career of Rotimi Cibuike Amaechi, the subject of this collection of essays.
In any case, the peculiar enclave known as Nigeria calls for very special extensions of those characteristics that much of the world count as demonstrations of leadership courage – a refusal to wilt even under withering power – a nation whose political life has fluctuated between military and civilian rule under such similarities in the exercise of power that both citizens and outside observers often cannot distinguish where one ended and the other began. Within such a political culture, it should not be surprising that what some applaud as acts of courage would be read as acts of recklessness, arrogance, naiveté or obstructionism – “spoiling the game” or not being a “team player” etc.etc.

These are all attitudes one encounters as response among integrationist players on the political field. It is a response that complements the development of trivialising pronouncements such as “stomach infrastructure”, the latest coinage to attempt to couch the politics of instant gratification in the garb of political realism. What it does however is open the gates of governance wide to the entry of performing clowns, the sanitisation of those who, in other climes, would be deemed not only political lepers but social pariahs.
In a nation where the meaning of courage is the very act of daily survival, this is perhaps understandable, but it is necessary also to remind the thinking part of any electorate that there exist others in the ranks of leadership who refuse to pander to the lowest common denominator of public expectations. They lay the foundation for a viable future, even at the risk of earning the hostility, even of the violent nature of others on their, or other rungs of the shared ladder of power. Those proponents of the live-and-lets-share attitude to governance, cynically promote a culture of hand-out dependency among vulnerable sectors of the public. They advertise the opposing school of governance as enemies of the people, and forge in them bonds of loyalty to whatever passes for power. Around their orbit is woven a network of corruption that is self-proliferating, since it draws more and more of the same tendency into itself, swelling its rank, while the resisters are isolated, sometimes pilloried, hunted and even, wherever possible, eliminated as deviants from the norm.
Thus arises the touting of new insights such as “stomach infrastructure,” a concision for the more familiar, dismissive expression – “na dat one we go chop?” Alas, “dat” stands for the far-sighted bequests of governance that alone guarantee a sustainable enhancement of the quality of life through common services, material infrastructural development that minister to productive existence, and the laying of a foundation for future generations through the provision of access to education, health and creative opportunities. The language of cheap populism, reductionism, opportunistic and insincere, is substituted for the painstaking pursuit of inclusivity and purpose, with palpable evidence of development. The implicitly mockery of “stomach infrastructure” is elevated to a defending theology, the summative aspiration of a populace of proven intelligence and political discrimination.
No matter the political system, there are always tiers of powers in any society. In the interaction between those tiers – based on laid down protocols of co-existence – rulers free to expose themselves as either upholders or betrayers of the trust placed in their hands by the electorate for smooth governance, a prerequisite for daily social stability. They can opt for mutual respect or condescension; foster complementary spheres of operation or master–slave relationships; dictatorship or peer collaboration, etc. etc. The right choice is crucial for ensuring that society remains on an even keel, not dragged into whirlpools of power conflict. All tiers however are understood to be dedicated to a mission of ameliorating the conditions of the humanity under their charge.
When the signs clearly indicate betrayal of that mission in caucuses where power is exercised away from the electorate, only the courage of a principled minority rescues society from waking up from a four-year sleep to find that they have been disenfranchised, materially deprived even of the pillows that prop up their heads while they went into the four, five or six-year sleep between elections. Participants in governance then have a choice – to collaborate with such predatory power tiers or alert the somnolent constituency. They have a choice to kowtow to occupants of the higher tiers in the acknowledged hierarchy of power, always bearing in mind that they are equal custodians of the people’s trust and thus, equally accountable. They may however opt for the more hazardous path of a principled defense of a people conferred mandate! Theirs is the choice of drifting with the tide or exerting leadership pressure from their sphere of shared authority and responsibility, exercising legitimate powers on behalf of their electorate, or else acquiesces in the orgy of treachery. They have a choice of surrendering, even their own powers “for the sake of peace” and/or lure of favour, while others fend off encroachments that can only work against the interests of the people whom they are elected to serve. The have the choice of preserving their own integrity, or abandoning both political and personal self-respect. To make the right choice, and to make it consistently, despite incurring penalties such as the deprivation of legitimate resources and political isolation, persecution and unrelenting harassment, including threat to life – now that clearly offers us a template of governance courage to which one feels an obligation to call attention.
Such exercise of courage should not be necessary. It should never be required in a normal society, that is, a society that respects and is guided by the rule of law. It has to be abnormal circumstances that call on the rest of us, observers on the side lines, to point to very real and exceptional acts that define such courage – but then, how do you define a nation that appears to exist in exceptional circumstances, a nation that is permanently defined by serial abnormalities! Where, for example, in the whole wide world, do we encounter the travesty of numbers where five members of a corporation of twenty seven gather to annual the membership of the other twenty two, all equal under company laws and public mandate? Or the Chairman of the company governing board who accepts, endorses, and acts upon the basis of a “majority” of fifteen over seventeen? To stand up to a bully, no one will deny that this takes courage – be it as a class pupil against an aggressive classmate or overbearing school prefect, a driver’s apprentice against an over-muscled garage tout, a battered wife – or husband – against an abusive and violent spouse. Even a factory floor worker tied to slave wages has it in him to refuse to act slavishly in relating to the foreman or factory owner. It requires only that attribute that is common to all humanity – courage. Few draw upon that inner resource, however. In any non-dictatorial form of governance, where all are equal before the vote, and earn legitimacy within clearly demarcated zones of authority no matter the tier of governance, conduct that requires exceptional courage in interaction should be totally incongruous.
Yet the choice of resistance and surrender constantly looms as a factor of survival, and many succumb to force majeure. A mere handful then find themselves obliged to compensate for such dereliction by the redoubled exertion of their own reserves of courage in defense of the integrity of office. This is a travesty of responsibility in any democracy, since even disputed overlaps of boundaries, resulting in zonal trespassing are easily arbitrated by the structures of law and constitution, thus leaving all branches of governance free to concentrate on the duties for which they are elected. All these form the basis, not only of civilsed governance, but of society itself. Anything to the contrary and the public is cheated, shortchanged, since time, mind, and resources must be deployed again and again – sometimes, on a continuous basis – to anticipate and secure the very springboard from which rulership responsibility can be discharged. This is where courage itself becomes, ironically, a tyrant, demanding more of every situation, ever insatiable, nearly turning into the enemy of its own most faithful protagonists.
The cautionary tale of David and goliath has turned a nation into addicts of political soap opera – “do not miss the next episode!” screams the last, and it never fails to disappoint. The multiple incarnations of Goliath consistently proves incapable of learning from their predecessor. They forget that David is also a creature of multiple guises but, additionally, a waif of tremendous courage. Easy victories from the past has lulled Mr. Goliath into a condition of complacement stupor, his bag full of antiquated tricks from past successes. Sometimes brazenly, clobbering opposition to submission with secret files of past malfeasances to silence dissent within the ranks. Sometimes in defiance of, and for the inglorious agenda of undermining a people’s last recourse – the judiciary. Sometimes sneakily, such as altering resolutions of the legislature in the corridor of power after midnight – scandalous instances which fade into the sump of a nation’s short memory, making one wonder – did I dream this, or did it really happen? Sometimes in guise of a gentle giant of mild mien, but with a mailed fist within velvet gloves. Yes indeed, there is also the Goliath versed in co-option of what should be a people’ common services for collective security – the Army – in order to threaten and intimidate all opposition in a simple, routine, regulated contest for places on the ladder of governance. We are endeavouring to call to mind the scenario where a soldier ‘arrests’ a sitting governor, menaces him with a gun, for daring to tread a common political earth in pursuit of his personal but legitimate political interest. And sometimes we encounter Goliath of organised lawlessness, no better than a gangland mobster but paid from public funds and decked in uniformed authority, a Goliath who routinely disrupts assemblages of the elected, proscribes meetings of a people’s chosen representatives, lays siege to, and tear gases homes of the elected.
When thoroughly drunk with ill-digested power, Goliath even forgets that he is only a paid functionaire and moves to occupy the territory of sheer bombast. He is now a lion, he declares, oblivious to the reality – as pronounced by his designated victim – that only a drunk mistakes a woman’s lapper for a lion’s mane. Such clowns need to be sent on refresher courses to places where children go to view lions for a few pennies, and circuses where the lion tamer cracks his whip to make them jump through hoops, rise on their hind legs, strut and simper like lapdogs to the delectation of audiences. There are indeed, lions and lions. We know of vegetarian lions even as there are the authentic carnivores and lords of the grassland.
Why, we are moved to ask, are some other Goliath variations patently at home in company of the unsavory, over whom a broad net of protection is cast, so that they become untouchable, and the culture of impunity becomes rampant from one end of the nation to the other. Over such an enclave is sometimes spread a banner that reads: “Stealing is Not corruption.” And so David continues his crusade, unfazed, right into the lion’s den in order to band the mangy creature in his den, contesting the descent of governance into an uncontested diarchy where citizens cannot even swear who is the senior partner, such is the right and power of interventionism exercised by the unelected paramour.

More at blogs.premiumtimesng.com/?p=167595

views expressed are not necessarily the opinion of blog author. materials and other news items on this Blog, can be reproduced, published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in whole or in part provided that appropriate credit is given to the original sources.